Heard Mr. Bhawnani, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The Revision Petition was entertained that assails the orders of the District Consumer Forum, Raipur, dated 03.07.2013 and its affirmance by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh in FA/14/2019 decided on 29.03.2014.

The claim of the Complainant was that having realized fees from the Complainant for a vocational course that was advertised by the Petitioners professing themselves as an Airhostess Training Academy to be conducted by it a promise was made for a hundred per cent job security with a further promise of the issuance of a certificate form an institution in United Kingdom. The fee for the said course was paid in installments by the Complainant in total to the tune of Rs.1,58,000/-.

The Complainants after an examination conducted demanded the certificate which was not given on one pretext or the other and later on a fake certificate was given to them. The said certificate was absolutely forged and had no concern with the institution as was promised in the advertisement.

The Petitioner set up a defense that it was working as a franchise of one M/s Aha Aviation and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi that had not been arrayed as a party and therefore they were not responsible in any way for any such deficiency alleged. They further took a plea that the complainant had knowingly and willingly taken admission and hence the Petitioner was neither personally nor vicariously liable for any deficiency as alleged.

The District Forum found that the franchise was authorized to conduct the entire business as a licensee and the advertisements made by the Petitioner categorically made the promises which were deceptive and ultimately found to be fake. They had also realized and received the fee payable. The District Commission accordingly directed the Petitioner to refund the entire amount of face together with 6% interest with compensation of Rs.1 lakh and Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.

The order of the District Commission dated 03.07.2013 was assailed in the appeal before the State Commission which has been confirmed by the order dated 07.08.2015.

It is these two orders which have been assailed contending that the impugned orders suffer from infirmity and the Complainant was neither a consumer nor could he have availed of the jurisdiction before the Consumer Forum.

The petition was entertained on 03.06.2016 and an interim order was passed to the following effect.

“Dated:03.06.2016

ORDER

De-hors the outcome of the present revision petition in the event of petitioner directly remitting a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) by way of demand draft  in the name of respondent no.1 to meet the travelling and sundry expenses in connection with the present proceedings within four weeks, issue notice to the respondents returnable on 08.12.2016.

In the meanwhile, execution of the impugned order is stayed, subject to petitioner depositing the entire award amount with the District Forum concerned within four weeks. The amount deposited shall be kept in Fixed Deposit Account initially for a period of one year.

    It is made clear that in the event of non-compliance of the above directions by the petitioner, the District Forum shall be at liberty to execute its order”

The case proceeded thereafter and certain costs were imposed on the Petitioner where after the pandemic intervened and the case could not be taken up. The case went unattended on several dates on 24.06.2022 & 21.10.2022 where after the Petitioner Counsel was called upon to effect fresh service. Substituted service was carried out and proof of publication was filed. No one appeared for the Respondent.

Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner the impugned orders record categorical findings of deficiency against the Petitioner holding that this was a clear deceptive act on the part of the Petitioner and the plea that there were only a franchise is untenable inasmuch as they were clearly acting on behalf of their principal and had directly realized the entire amount from the Complainant. The services were defective and as found by the Fora below even the certificate was fake. The defect in the service was therefore established and as a matter of fact this was a clear unfair trade practice.

Consequently we see no irregularity or illegality in the impugned orders calling for the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Commission. The revision is accordingly rejected.